Journal of Cleaner Production - carbonfarm.eu · Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e13 Please cite this article inpress as: Pergola, M., et al., A combined assessment of the

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e13

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

A combined assessment of the energy, economic and environmentalissues associated with on-farm manure composting processes: Twocase studies in South of Italy

M. Pergola a, A. Piccolo b, A.M. Palese a, *, C. Ingrao c, V. Di Meo d, G. Celano e

a Ages s.r.l.s. Spin-off Accademico, Universit�a degli Studi della Basilicata, Viale dell’Ateneo Lucano, 10, 85100 Potenza, Italyb Centro Interdipartimentale di Ricerca sulla Risonanza Magnetica Nucleare per l’Ambiente, l’Agro Alimentare ed i Nuovi Materiali (CERMANU), Universit�adegli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Universit�a, 100, 80055 Portici, NA, Italyc Department of Economics, Universit�a degli Studi di Foggia, Via Romolo Caggese, 1, 71121 Foggia, Italyd Centro di Sperimentazione di Castel Volturno, Dipartimento di Agraria, Universit�a degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, via Pietro Pagliuca, 1, 81030, CastelVolturno, CE, Italye Dipartimento di Farmacia (DIFARMA), Universit�a degli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 7 July 2016Received in revised form3 February 2017Accepted 18 April 2017Available online xxx

Keywords:Cow-buffalo manureLCAEnergy analysisProduction cost analysisBioeconomySouthern Italy

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected], palesedin

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.1110959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Pergola, Mon-farm manure composting processes: Twj.jclepro.2017.04.111

a b s t r a c t

Livestock effluents “surplus” is a very sensitive issue for farmers who have several difficulties to managethem and ensure their safe disposal. In this regard, composting is a very strategic way to break downenvironmental impacts associated with manure management.

This study was aimed at assessing the production sustainability of one ton of compost from dairycattle/buffalo manure in two on-farm facilities operating in Southern Italy and using different bulkingagents (wood chip from Short Rotation Forestry, straw and pruning residues). A combined assessmentapproach was used in 2013 to investigate all the aspects of the composting processes studied, to identifystrengths and weaknesses and then optimize the operative steps. Particularly, Life Cycle Assessment,Energy Analysis and Life Cycle Costing were used to calculate environmental impacts, the involved en-ergy and the cost of the production of 1 ton of compost, respectively, and to compare the variouscomposting scenarios.

Regardless of the type of composting scenarios, one ton of on-farm compost caused essentially eco-toxicity potential and abiotic depletion and its cost ranged from 10 to 31 euro. Compost productionrequired from 233 to 756 MJ of energy. Particularly, the lesser impacts and the lesser energy and costrequirements occurred when maize straw or pruning residues were used as bulking agents. The pro-posed study, which linked together the three above mentioned methodologies, is unusual within theavailable literature on dairy cattle/buffalo manure composting. This combined approach allowed todefine a complete landscape of sustainable possibilities in managing organic residues (especiallymanure) at the farm level giving useful information to promote the diffusion of these low technologycomposting processes and the agronomic use of compost thus obtained. All this to ensure sustainableresource use alleviating stress on the environment as claimed by the Europe’s Bioeconomy Strategy.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A smart and green growth in Europe is expected according tothe Europe 2020 Strategy and bio-economy can be seen as a keyelement to follow in a sustainable growth pathway. As stated inIngrao et al. (2016), ‘bio-economies’ are bio-based economies

[email protected] (A.M. Palese).

., et al., A combined assessmeo case studies in South of It

characterised by both reduced dependence upon imported fossilfuels and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, it isfundamental that such economies are sustainably implementedand managed in the short and long-term to ensure the essentialproduction and consumption transitions to reduce fossil GHGemissions (Ingrao et al., 2016). The bio-economy should be such asto: ensure food security for a growing world population; mitigateclimate change; and preserve soil fertility and biodiversity. So,there is the urgent need for transition from the current fossil-based

nt of the energy, economic and environmental issues associated withaly, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.111



M. Pergola et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e132

economy to a bio-based one that pursues both production andutilisation of renewable resources and materials in efficient,responsible and sustainable manners (European Commission,2012).

In order to meet the increasing global population, the rapiddepletion of many resources, the increasing environmental pres-sures and climate change, Europe should change its approach toproduction, consumption, processing, storage, recycling anddisposal of biological resources (European Commission, 2012). Forthis purpose, it is urgent to substantially improve our current waysof production and consumption by adopting an holistic approach tosustainability, so promoting and fostering the transition to trulyequitable, sustainable, post-fossil carbon societies (Blok et al., 2015;Ingrao et al., 2016). For instance, nowadays, irrigation playsimportant roles in the hydrological cycle and the accurate knowl-edge about the cycle phases can help for scheduling and forecastingin water resource management (Valipour et al., 2015), so contrib-uting to its optimisation. Water resources should be accessed in asustainable manner not only to ensure survival on our planet, butalso to improve quality of life. Although the use of modern pumpscan help to improve water supply and to extend irrigated agricul-ture in the world, extreme extraction of groundwater also repre-sents a serious threat to sustainable development. So, researchpriorities should be undertaken towards the development of cost-effective approaches and practises in all sectors (Yannopouloset al., 2015).

As a matter of fact, the numerous existing technological ad-vances that have been made in several fields like, for instance,energy generation and agriculture - as above mentioned withrespect to water sector - may result not to be effective in thereduction of the related socio-economic and environmental im-pacts due to a lack of attention to the behavioural dimensions ofconsumption. This should be attributed to the complexities of theways by which consumers interact with products and services. So,in agreement with Blok et al. (2015), the authors of this paperstrongly believe that there cannot be sustainability if: the eco-nomic, environmental, social and time dimensions, as well as theirinterconnections, are not duly addressed and accomplished; andproduction and consumption systems are not considered andinterconnected.

In this context, livestock effluent “surplus” is a very sensitiveissue for the majority of farmers, due to the difficulties that theyexperience in their management and correct, safe disposal. Asclaimed by several authors (De Vries et al., 2012; Prapaspongsaet al., 2010; Sandars et al., 2003; Thomassen et al., 2008), manuremanagement contributes to: soil acidification and particulatematter formation; climate change through emissions of GHGs,mainly through volatilisation of ammonia (NH3) and nitrogen ox-ides (NyOx); eutrophication, mainly through leaching of nitrate(NO3

�) and phosphate (PO43�) to soil and surface water; and deple-

tion of fossil energy sources as a result of its management. There-fore, sustainable ways of manure management and treatmentshould be found and pursued, so contributing to the biomass usageoptimisation in bio-economy based systems. A sound biowastemanagement is a promising solution towards post-fossil carbonsocieties (Mihai and Ingrao, 2016), as it is characterised by goodlevels of energy, economic and environmental performance.

In this context, manure composting can be considered as a so-lution to break down the aforementioned environmental impactsand other related ones. Composting is an organic waste manage-ment system that provides the formation of piles to create a recy-cled product known as ‘compost’. According to Brown et al. (2008),composting can be considered as a C-based system, similar toreforestation, agricultural management practices, or other wastemanagement industries. As a matter of fact, compost is a stable

Please cite this article in press as: Pergola, M., et al., A combined assessmeon-farm manure composting processes: Two case studies in South of Itj.jclepro.2017.04.111

humus-like product, generally rich in carbon and free of mostpathogens and weed seeds (ALBERTA, 2005). It is usable as a soilamendment and derives from the processing of organic residues bymeans of aerobic and, secondly, anaerobic microorganisms.

In accordance with the Europe’s Bioeconomy Strategy, compostcan be used in agriculture to improve chemical, physical, microbi-ological and phytosanitary properties of soils (Celano et al., 2012;Martínez-Blanco et al., 2013; Komilis et al., 2011; Pane et al.,2013). At the same time, it is known that the composting processgenerates indirect and direct emissions of GHGs like carbon dioxide(CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (NO), so contributing toglobal warming and, as a result, to climate change (Hellebrand andKalk, 2001; Santos et al., 2016).

This study was aimed at assessing the sustainability of manurecomposting process, using different on-farm facilities and bulkingagents, testing its energy efficiency, as well as its economic andenvironmental performance. The research was designed to inves-tigate two composting plants of dairy cattle/buffalo manure oper-ating in Italy and was based upon a combined assessment of therelated energy, economic and environmental aspects. In particular,to assess and compare those three aspects, Life Cycle Assessment(LCA), Energy Analysis (EA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) wereapplied.

2. A review of the specialised scientific literature

Compost naturally contains both macroelements (mainly ni-trogen, phosphorus and potassium) and microelements that areessential for plant nutrition (Celano et al., 2012): hence, its usecontributes to the improvement of soil chemical fertility. Also, soilphysical fertility is increased as compost contributes to the creationof a soil structure that ameliorates soil aeration and water retentioncapacity, as well as soil softness and workability (Martínez-Blancoet al., 2013). Compost distribution stimulates microorganism ac-tivity which enhances the availability of nutrients for plants andproduces hormone-like substances that are able to promote cropgrowth (Komilis et al., 2011). The plant phytosanitary statusimprovement is the result of the direct antagonistic action by mi-croorganisms developed during the composting process, such asthe thermophilic bacteria of Bacillus genus but, also, as a conse-quence of the growth stimulation of those antagonistic microor-ganisms already present in soils. All those microorganisms hinderthe development of plant pathogenic bacteria and fungi in soilsthrough mechanisms of competition for space and nutrients andthe production of antibiotic substances (Pane et al., 2013).Furthermore, compost utilisation allows for quality and sustain-ability related benefits like: the improvement of the sanitary con-ditions of livestock; the decrease of manure cost-management; theenhancement of the role of soil carbon sequestration of the farms;the savings of external inputs such as fertilisers, pesticides andwater; and the bioremediation of polluted soils in order to build anequitable, sustainable bio-economy with greening effect uponagriculture (Ingrao et al., 2016).

During composting, heat and carbon dioxide (CO2) are releasedby the microorganisms as they transform the organic matter intocompost. According to de Mendonça Costa et al. (2015), Sun et al.(2011) and Rynk et al. (1992), the following conditions shouldoccur for the composting process to develop correctly:

- a carbon to nitrogen ratio (C/N) ranging from 20 to 30;- a pore space containing water (accounting for at least 50%);- piles under aerobic conditions.

The organic matter decomposition releases to the atmospheredirect emissions of GHGs (i.e. CH4, N2O, CO2) and NH3, though their


M. Pergola et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e13 3

measurement is not easy because it depends upon several factorsthat occur during composting. Water content, ventilation, poredistribution and bulk density, composition, and weather conditionsare some of those. In addition to them, pH, temperature, and the Cto N ratio of organic matrices constitute other influencing factors(Hellebrand and Kalk, 2001). Lack of oxygen is usually linked withthe emission of methane during composting. The content ofammonium, urea and other organic nitrogen in the compostingbiomass directly influences the emission of NH3, which is devel-oped based upon the temperature, aeration and pH value of thebiomass itself. Temperature, nitrogen content (especially nitrate)and aeration influence N2O-emissions. For livestock waste, aerationand C to N ratio determine the type of nitrogen transformations(Hellebrand and Kalk, 2001). High aeration and low carbon contentresult in nitrite accumulation and incomplete ammonium oxida-tion. Low aeration and sufficient carbon content enhance nitrifi-cation and denitrification as sources of N2O-emissions (Beline et al.,1999).

As regards the indirect emissions, they have been analysed bymeans of LCA in many researches which were focalised upon theprocessing technologies along the entire life cycle of manure and itsend-products (Hamelin et al., 2011; Lopez-Ridaura et al., 2009;Prapaspongsa et al., 2010). Industrial composting and waste man-agement systems were also studied using LCA (Benetto et al., 2009;Dalemo et al., 1997; Diaz and Warith, 2006; Diggelman and Ham,2003; Fruergaard et al., 2010; Güereca et al., 2006; Mu~noz et al.,2009; Sharma and Campbell, 2003; Sonesson et al., 2000), as wellas bio waste treatments (Bernstad and la Cour Jansen, 2012). Fromthe developed LCAs, composting resulted to be less environmen-tally impacting than other organic waste disposal scenarios, such aslandfill and incineration (Saer et al., 2013). For contrast, no papersregarding environmental assessments of on-farm manure com-posting systems (by means of open windrow systems) were foundby the authors, thereby remarking the need for studies like the onediscussed in this paper.

Conventional agricultural production systems are characterisedby a huge consumption of fossil energy; this latter is representedby: the operational energy, which is consumed by the activitiescontainedwithin the systems investigated; and the energywhich isembedded in the production of the fertilisers, plant protectionproducts, agricultural machineries and other equipment utilised(Kaltsas et al., 2007). In this context, an in-depth EA would bedesirable to indicate ways to decrease the energy inputs and, at thesame time, increase energy efficiency. Recently, there has been arenewed interest in the control of energy consumption followingsustainable approaches. According to Ozkan et al. (2004), consid-erable researches were performed upon the energy consumption inagriculture with particular regard to the fruit sector (Esengun et al.,2007; Gezer et al., 2003; Gündo�gmuṣ, 2006; La Rosa et al., 2008;Namdari et al., 2011; Ozkan et al., 2004; Polychronaki et al.,2007). For contrast, the authors found a gap in the specialisedscientific literature as regards the assessment of the energy con-sumption associated with on-farm compost production by meansof open windrow systems. In this regard, it should be noticed thatthe Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) has been evaluated byMartínez-Blanco et al. (2010) for home and industrial compostingof the source-separated organic fraction of municipal solid waste(OFMSW). They found that the electricity consumption for opera-tions within both composting systems together with the collectionof the OFMSW and the pruning waste - used as bulking agent - hadthe higher contributions (32% each item) for CED. In another study,Col�on et al. (2010) performed CED analysis of an experimentalhome composting process of leftovers of raw fruits and vegetables.They found that the composter was the major contributor for theCED reaching values of 73%


From an economic point of view, Mu et al. (2017) analysedcomposting food wastes in an in-vessel composter, found that thecomposting system could generate a profit of $13,200 a year byselling vegetables grown with compost. Proietti et al. (2016) inte-grated the cost analysis of managing individual composting plantswith the physical-chemical properties of materials to be com-posted, to determine the quantities of different raw materials to bemixed to obtain the mixture subjected to composting. Ruggieriet al. (2009) analysed the technical and economic feasibility ofcomposting waste fromwine making, assessing the environmentalimpact and energy performance using the LCA methodology. Inparticular, the study compared the costs of the composting systemdesigned with those of disposing of the waste.

In the light of the above, it seems that no studies have assessedin a single study the energy, economic efficiency and environ-mental sustainability issues associated with manure compostingprocesses. That is what the authors have done and discussed aboutin this paper, because a comprehensive analysis of the economic,environmental and energy issues related to a given productionsystem can support the process of finding and applying the bestmanagement strategies (Bowers, 1992; Pimentel et al., 2005;Pimentel, 1992; Reganold et al., 2001). The authors included alsothe economic issues in the assessment to define the productioncosts and their affordability, so making the whole assessment morescientifically relevant and useful.

Therefore, the study could contribute to fill the aforementionedgaps and enhance the international literature and knowledge in thecompost supply chain field.

3. Description of the composting plants

The first plant is located in the Caserta province (Castel Vol-turno, Campania, Italy, 41�3052.5800N, 13�59027.2500E), it is able totreat around 600 ton manure per year and it is managed by CER-MANU, a research institution of the University of Naples. It is aprototype for on-farm compost production based on confinedwindrows. This composting plant (called from now on ‘CV Plant’)treats buffalo/cow manure using different bulking agents (con-ventional straw, wood chip from Short Rotation Forestry - SRF,maize straw) and involves some farms to create a network for theoptimisation of the compost chain management. In this way, itcould be possible to solve the problems associated with manuredisposal through the production and the use of on-farm compostwithout resorting to the market.

CV Plant consists of four main areas and all equipments (canalsand tank) for leachate collection; in particular, these areas areutilised as follows:

- one for storage/mix of the raw material inputs;- one for the active composting phase;- one for the compost maturity (curing phase); and, finally,- one for compost storage, outlet from the curing phase (maturecompost).

As shown in Fig. 1, the building where the organic matrix pilesare placed is open and has a 400m2 usable areawithin. In structuralterms, the building is made of cast-in-situ concrete as regards thepillars, the foundations and the pavement, whilst a load bearingstructure made of steel section bars coupled with aluminiumpanels is used for the building covering. Additionally, the plant isprovided with: a blower and 3 polyethylene tubes (two 20 mmdiameter holes each 300 mm) for the forced ventilation of thewindrows; an irrigation system; a continuous control and datacollection unit (monitoring of oxygen concentration andtemperature).


Fig. 1. Castel Volturno composting plant (CV Plant). Fig. 3. Composting plant in Matera province (Stigliano Plant e ST Plant). In particular,the figure shows the distance in km between the composting plant and the groves forthe procurement of the pruning residues.


The composting process consists of a decomposition phase inactively aerated windrows with controlled aeration for 40 daysfollowed by 120 days in an openeair phase. Actually, manuretreated in the CV Plant comes from a door-to-door residue collec-tion system from two farms located in the surroundings of the farmat very low distances (550 m and 850 m, respectively) (Fig. 2). Theobtained compost is used in agriculture by these two farms and bythe Naples University experimental station for maize production.

The second composting plant (called from now on ’ST Plant’) islocated in the province of Matera (Stigliano, Basilicata, Italy,40�17050.0500N, 16�28028.8500E) within a private farm, and it is ableto treat around 500 tons of manure per year. In particular, it is amixed livestock-fruit farm of approximately 231 ha in which dairycattle are raised; additionally, meadows, arable crops and fruit or-chards (citrus, peach and olive groves) are cultivated (Fig. 3). The

Fig. 2. The door to door residue collection system in Castel Volturno composting plant(CV Plant). In particular the figure shows the distances in meters between the com-posting plant (A) and the manure procurement farms (B).


manure is used for compost productionwhich is re-used within thefarm as organic fertiliser in the croplands and fruit orchards. Theplant includes four cells which are equipped with aeration pipesconnected to a blower supplying an intermittent airflow. Tree cellsare 20 m long and 6 m wide, whilst another one is 17 m long and6 m wide. The total cell volume exceeds the quantity of manureproduced within the farm (about 500 ton per year), but makes itpossible to correctly perform the storage and curing of the compostproduced developing an efficient composting process (Fig. 4). Thecells are placed at three sides of an almost 0.8 m height perimeterwall, with the short side allowing free access of the mechanicalequipment involved. The platform has a slope of 2% for theconveyance of leachate to the collection system and storage presentwithin the plant (Fig. 4). In the past, the farm adopted a manuremanagement system based upon the maturity of the materialshovelled in the platform for a period ranging from 5 to 6 monthsand a manure distribution in the field with a manure-spreader.

Then, an on-farm composting technology, with low investmentand management costs, has been developed for both re-integration

Fig. 4. Stigliano Plant (ST Plant): cells for the collection of manure.



of the soil organic matter and minimisation of the adverse envi-ronmental impact of livestock manure due to the large productionof polluting leachate. This new composting approach was proposedwithin a EU-Basilicata Region project (Agreement programMATTM UNCCD-Basilicata Region: Pilot Project to Combat theDesertification-Basilicata). Particularly, a trial was planned with theaim of accelerating the maturation of cattle manure using, asbulking agent, poplar wood chips obtained from the maintenanceof the riparian areas. Therefore, a composting plant was imple-mented to provide static piles and forced ventilation for thesimplicity of its management, the availability of materials andequipment within the farm, the low labour requirement, as well asthe low (economic and environmental) processing costs. Tubes anddrip-lines, commonly used for irrigation systems, were used for theaeration and the humidification of the mass; a common blower wasused for air insufflations.

4. Materials and methods

The research discussed in this paper was designed to investigateon-farm manure compost production systems in Southern Italy, byassessing: energy efficiency; environmental impact; and produc-tion costs.

An in-depth analysis was conducted for each of the aforemen-tioned indicators and was performed using the LCA approach, ac-cording to the ISO 14040-44:2006 (ISO, 2006a,b). Each of the threeanalyses was articulated in the following four interrelated phases:goal and scope definition; life cycle inventory; life cycle impactassessment; and interpretation.

4.1. Goal and scope definition, functional unit and system boundary

The goal of the analyses carried out in the present research wasto verify the environmental, energy and economic sustainability offour composting alternatives for CV Plant and two for ST Plant toproduce compost. Particularly, the alternatives differed for the us-age of diverse bulking agents, important local biological resourcesin Southern Italy (wood chip from SRF, maize and conventionalstraw) and for their combination in stables and in the compostingplants (Table 1). Their combination helped to find the most sus-tainable solution as bedding for the animals and discover the mostappropriate materials to become bulking agent and to have themajor beneficial structuring function for the composting process.

The results obtained could be useful for farmers, farmer asso-ciations, LCA practitioners, technicians and local politicians to solvethe problems associated with manure disposal through the pro-duction and the usage of compost on-farm in a sustainableway. Thestudy could be considered as a first step forward to support thecreation of a regulated barter based upon a network of farms that

Table 1Composting alternatives for Castel Volturno Plant (CV Plant) and Stigliano Plant (STPlant). The alternatives differed for the use of diverse bulking agents and for theircombination in stables and in the composting plants.

Alternatives Stable Plant

CV PlantA CS þ MS WCB CS þ MS MSC WC WCD MS MSST PlantE PR CSF WC CS

CS: conventional straw; WC: wood chip from Short Rotation Forestry; PR: pruningresidues; MS: maize straw.


exchange manure and compost. This could lead to ancient forms ofefficient and sustainable agriculture, so fostering the transition toequitable, sustainable, local bio-economies.

For the development of the whole assessment, both the Func-tional Unit (FU) and the system boundaries were defined. The FU inLCA provides a reference to which the inputs and outputs of theinventory are related and allows the comparison between systemsor alternatives (International Organisation for Standardisation,2006a, b). The function of the plants under study was to producecompost from manure. Therefore, the basis for the comparison ofthe different alternatives, named the functional unit of the servicedelivered, was defined as the production of one ton of compostwith a 70% dry matter, as reported also in other studies (Saer et al.,2013; Norhasmillah et al., 2013). Consequently, to meet the objec-tives of the present research, the system boundaries started withthe processing of the organic residues (wheat straw -WS; woodchip from SRF - WC; maize straw - MS; orchard tree pruning resi-dues - PR) and the collection of manure from the stables to thecomposting plants and finish with the compost production. Thetransportation of the produced compost to its final destination wasexcluded because it was outside the scope of this research.

Referring to the wood chip processing, the following farmingoperations were taken into account: arboretum plantation (soilpreparation, pre-plantation fertilisation, tree plantation); soiltillage; fertilisation; tree harvesting and transportation to farms.Instead, referring to conventional straw and maize straw process-ing, the following phases were taken into account: chopping, rak-ing, baling, harvesting, loading and transportation. For pruningresidues, chopping and transportation from fruit orchards to thecomposting plants were considered.

As the Recycled Organics Unit (2007) reports, a conventionalcomposting system generates impacts and avoided impacts in anumber of unit steps. So, the system boundaries was designed inorder to enable the accounting of the main impacts coming fromthe following unit phases:

- the processing of the bulking agents (WS, WC and MS for the CVPlant; conventional straw andWC from pruning residues for theST Plant);

- the transportation of those materials to the stables or thecomposting plants;

- the collection of manure and its receiving;- the construction of the capital equipment and infrastructures;and, finally,

- the compost processing.

To be consistent with the aims of this study, attention wasfocalised upon:

- the construction of the capital equipment or infrastructures inall processes;

- the fuel usage in the various agricultural and compostingoperations;

- the electricity consumption associated with the compositingphase and facility;

- the fertilisers used in the SRF production.

For greater understanding and appreciation of the study, thesystem boundaries with indication of the input and output flowsconsidered were depicted in Fig. 5.

4.2. Inventory data collection

All data needed for the study development was inventoried bymeans of a survey questionnaire which was administered to plant


• Collection of the manure• Bulking agents discharging at plant• Manure discharging at the plant• Mixing manure and bulking agents• Trimming pile• Insufflation of hot air• Compost discharging from the plant

• Diesel• Electricity• Manure

• Diesel production• Resource input• Electricity production

PROCESSING

• Farming operations charactiristic foreach processing material• Transportation of materials to stables

• Diesel• Fertilizers

• Fuel production• Fertilizers productionPROCESS OF

MATERIALS

• Atmosphericemissions

• Abioticdepletion

• Human andeco-toxicity

•Eutrophication

• Acidification

• Construction of capital equipmentand infrastructures

• Fuel• Electricity

• Resourse inputCAPITALEQUIPMENTCONSTRUCTION

OUTPUTS/IMPACTS

MAIN COMPONENTSINPUTSRAWMATERIALS

Fig. 5. System boundaries and input and output flows for the analysed composting systems.


managers and farmers. Inputs used in the examined compostingscenarios were reported in Table 2. As in a similar study (Cadenaet al., 2009), data on the questionnaire related to compostingoperational phases (days of treatment, aeration conditions, etc.)were also checked and confirmed in situ.

For the study development, since a particularly specialisedsystem was assessed, priority was given to using primary data interms of input material typologies and amounts used. Additionally,as a standard practice in LCAs, secondary data were extrapolatedfrom international databases of scientific importance and reli-ability, like the Ecoinvent 3 (Ecoinvent, 2013). In particular, this wasdone for:

Table 2Inputs used in the examined composting scenarios within each composting plants(Castel Volturno Plant - CV Plant; Stigliano Plant - ST Plant). Values are referred toone ton of compost produced.

Operations CV Plant ST Plant

Alternatives

A B C D E F

Material processing and transportMachinery and farm tools (h) 1.60 0.63 3.04 0.24 0.35 2.88Human labour (h) 1.19 0.32 2.72 0.13 0.18 2.40Diesel oil (kg) 5.25 3.51 5.94 1.32 1.98 7.27Lubricants (kg) 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.12SRF cuttings (kg) 1.94 e 5.82 e e 4.65Fertilizers (kg) 0.26 e 0.78 e e 0.63

Stable management and collection of manureMachinery and farm tools (h) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.13Human labour (h) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07Diesel oil (kg) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.93 0.93Lubricants (kg) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02

Plant managementCapital equipment (kg) 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.45 1.45Machinery and farm tools (h) 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.22Human labour (h) 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13Diesel oil (kg) 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.07 1.07Lubricants (kg) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Electricity (kWh) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02


- the production of the diesel, electricity, fertilisers used in thesystems investigated, including the accounting of the resultingemissions; and

- the construction of the capital equipment.

Referring to electricity, the dataset describes the transformationfrom medium to low voltage, as well as the distribution of elec-tricity at low voltage. In particular, it encompasses the electricityproduction in Italy and from imports, the transmission network aswell as the direct SF6-emissions to air. Also, electricity losses duringlow-voltage transmission and transformation from mediumvoltage were accounted for (Ecoinvent, 2013). The fuel consump-tion model included the transportation of the product from therefinery to the end user.

Moreover, the inventory of agricultural vehicles took only intoaccount the use of resources and the amount of emissions duringtheir production, maintenance, repair and final disposal. TheEcoinvent module for the fertiliser utilised (urea) took into accountits production from ammonia and carbon dioxide. Transports of theintermediate products were included, as well as the transport of thefertiliser products from the factory to the regional storehouse.

Referring to direct emissions of GHGs during the compostingprocess, the emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O were derived from Haoet al. (2004), whose study is the only one in literature that inves-tigated GHG emissions both during composting of straw-beddedmanure (SBM) and wood chip-bedded manure (WBM) and theonly one that can be adapted to our research. Carbon dioxide (CO2),methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions were 165 kg CMg�1, 8.92 kg C Mg�1 and 0.077 kg N Mg�1 for SBM and 145.6 kg CMg�1, 8.93 kg C Mg�1 and 0.084 kg N Mg�1 for WBM, respectively.At the same time, in accordance with the recommendation of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006) and otherauthors of composting LCAs (Amlinger et al., 2008; Bjarnad�ottiret al., 2002; Boldrin et al., 2009; Chen and Lin, 2007; Edwardsand Williams, 2011; Quir�os et al., 2014; Saer et al., 2013; Zhaoet al., 2009), CO2 emitted from composting is biogenic and notfossil-derived, so it was not considered as a greenhouse gas emis-sion and not included in the global warming potential (GWP)accounting.



4.3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

The environmental assessment was carried out using SimaPro8.02 software, with the problem oriented LCA method developedby the Institute of Environmental Sciences of the University ofLeiden (Guin�ee et al., 2002). The impact categories considered inthe present analysis were global warming (GWP100), air acidifi-cation (AA), photochemical oxidation (PO), eutrophication (EU),ecotoxicity (ET), and ozone layer depletion (ODP). Such categorieswere considered in similar studies (Banar et al., 2009; Blengini,2008; Cadena et al., 2009; Emery et al., 2007; Eriksson et al.,2005). Moreover, in agreement with Bernstad and la Cour Jansen(2011), they were considered by the authors as environmentallyrelevant and internationally accepted in accordancewith ISO 14042recommendations (ISO, 2000). Furthermore, the impact assess-ment was conducted following a mid-point approach and, so, usingequivalent indicators (specific for the impact categories consid-ered) to express the LCA results in the form of characterisationvalues. In order to assess the contribution of each impact categoryon the overall environmental problem, ‘Normalisation’ of thecharacterisation results was done using as “Normal” value for theregion “Europe 25” (PR�e, various authors, 2015).

4.4. Energy analysis

Following Namdari et al. (2011), the energy analysis (EA)method was used to calculate the energy involved in the produc-tion of 1 ton of compost. To combine the EA results with thosecoming from the LCA, the analysis was conducted with the samesystem boundary and the same life cycle inventory described forthe LCA. The data collected covered the duration of each operationand the quantities of each input (machinery, fuel, electricity, fer-tilisers, labour, and so.). Energy values of unit inputs were given inmega joules (MJ) bymultiplying each input by its own coefficient ofequivalent energy factors taken from the literature (concrete:3 MJ kg�1; wood: 14.64 MJ kg�1; fuel: 46.2 MJ kg�1; iron:54.39 MJ kg�1; lubricant: 78.13 MJ kg�1; machinery: 80 MJ kg�1;plastic: 83.68 MJ kg�1) (Monarca et al., 2009; Page, 2009; Pimenteland Pimentel, 1979; Volpi, 1992). In order to calculate machineryenergy, the following formula was used:

ME ¼ ½ðEeq*G=TÞ�*H (1)

where Eeq was the machinery energy equivalent (MJ kg�1), G theweight of machines (kg), T the economic life of machines (h), and Hthe numbers of hours the machine used to carry out the variousoperations (h) (Ozkan et al., 2007). Energy consumption for ma-chinery maintenance was estimated as a percentage of energy inmanufacturing and materials (23% for tractors; 30% for tillage ma-chines) (Mil�a i Canals, 2003).

The energy input was examined as direct and embodied forms,renewable and non-renewable energies. Direct energy includedhuman labour, electricity, diesel fuel and lubricants used in thevarious scenarios described; whilst embodied energy coveredmachinery and maintenance. Renewable energy consists of dieselfuel, lubricants, electricity, and machinery energies. In the presentstudy, renewable energy includes only human labour (Namdariet al., 2011). Specifications on the EA methodology can be foundin Page (2009).

4.5. Production cost analysis

The Life Cycle Costing (LCC) method was applied to evaluate thecosts related to different compost production scenarios analysed inthe two composting plants. This method is currently applied to


calculate the total cost throughout the product’s life includingacquisition, installation, operation, maintenance, refurbishmentand disposal (Bai, 2009). LCC is a complementary tool, which pro-vides an economic analysis of the operations composing the supplychain of a product or service (Brand~ao et al., 2010). In addition tothis, it does not have a standardisation framework to follow, thoughapplication of life cycle methodologies, like LCA, according to theISO 14040-44:2006 can be extended to the economic aspects (ISO,2006a).

So, similarly to what done for the EA, in order to join LCC andLCA findings, the analysis was performed using the same systemboundary (Fig. 5) from the processing of the organic residues, thecollection of the manure from the stables to the composting plants,to the production of the compost (as explain in section 4.1) and thesame life cycle inventory described for LCA (Table 2).

Based upon the assumption that the production techniques(processing of bulking agents, collection of themanure, compostingprocess) of all composting alternatives are quite the same, theanalysis identified three main life cycle phases of compost pro-duction: bulking agents processing, manure collection, and com-posting process. As a standard practice of microeconomic analysis(Mohamad et al., 2013) and as reported in Proietti et al. (2016), foreach phase, the main typologies of operation management wereidentified along with the associated fixed and variable costs.Consequently, in order to: 1) make a complete economic analysis;2) be consistent with the other two analyses and 3) understand theimportance of each cost item, the cumulative costs of compostproduction were evaluated for each phase taking into account: theexpenses related to materials, labour and services, which representthe variable costs; and the quotas and the other duties, which arethe fixed costs. In the present study, for the materials, the costsconsidered were those of all non-capital inputs such as fertilisers,fuel, energy and other crop specifics; with regard to thelabour, the cost of workers involved in bulking agents productionand composting process were taken into account; quotas and ser-vices included machinery, equipment and depreciation costs(Pappalardo et al., 2013).

In order to analyse the amount of the total cost of 1 ton ofcompost, as reported in Ruggieri et al. (2009) and in Mu et al.(2017), the lifespan of the composting plants (fifteen years) wasconsidered and each value of the annual costs, whose current pricesreferred to 2013, was indexed and aggregated using a rate antici-pation (1/qn), where: n refers to the individual years of the lifespanof the composting plants (n ¼ 1,…,15) and q represents an indexingfactor, whose interest ratewas assumed to be equal to 2%. All valuesof the indexed costs were then added together.

To evaluate the whole LCC, expressed as the sum of the costs foreach phase of the compost plant life cycle, the cumulative valuewascalculated by taking into account the indexing of costs for differentproduction phases as follows:

X151

LCC ¼"X15

1

BAP ��1qn

�#þ"X15

1

MC ��1qn

�#þ"X15

1

CP

��1qn

�#

(2)

where:

-P15

1 LCC is the sum of the “Life Cycle Costs” of each year in thelife cycle of the composting plant

-P15

1 BAP: is the “bulking agents processing phase” from 1st to15th year. It includes, for wood chip processing, the following


Table 3Life cycle impact assessment analysis of the examined composting scenarios within each composting plants (Castel Volturno Plant - CV Plant; Stigliano Plant - ST Plant). Valuesare referred to one ton of compost produced. Bold numbers refer to the maximum and minimum values for each impact category.

Impact category CV Plant ST Plant

Alternatives

A B C D E F

AD (kg Sb eq) 0.28 0.22 0.31 0.16 0.12 0.28GWP (kg CO2 eq) 233.64 231.34 235.49 228.96 225.86 232.32ODP (kg CFC-11 eq) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ET (kg 1,4-DB eq) 10792.00 8828.00 11771.00 6479.00 4116.00 9818.00PO (kg C2H4) 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06AA (kg SO2 eq) 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.11EU (kg PO3�

4 eq) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02

AD: abiotic depletion; GWP: global warming potential (GWP100); ODP: ozone layer depletion; ET: ecotoxicity potential; PO: photochemical oxidation; AA: air acidification;EU: eutrophication.


farming operations: arboretum plantation, soil tillage; fertil-isation; tree harvesting and transportation of the material to thefarms; for conventional straw and maize straw processing, thefollowing operations: chopping, raking, baling, harvesting,loading and transportation; for pruning residues, the followingoperations: chopping and transportation from fruit orchards tothe composting plant.

-P15

1 MC: is the “manure collection phase” from 1st to 15th year.It refers to the transport of the manure from the stables to theplants.

-P15

1 BCP: is the “composting process phase” from 1st to 15thyear.

Specifications on this methodology are reported in Pergola et al.(2013).

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Environmental impacts

Results on life cycle impacts per ton of compost produced ac-cording to the different composting scenarios are shown in Table 3,which reports that the production of 1 ton of on farm compostconsumed from 0.12 to 0.31 kg of natural resources (including en-ergy resources), such as iron ore and crude oil given in kg of

0E+00

2E-10

4E-10

6E-10

8E-10

1E-09

1E-09

1E-09

A B C

compos

abiotic depletion global warming (GWP100)photochemical oxidation acidification

Fig. 6. Normalisation of the Impact Categorie


antimony equivalent (Sb eq), and it emitted from 226 to 236 kg ofCO2eq, responsible of GWP. More than 90% of GWP100 was due todirect emissions of CH4eC and N2OeN occurred during the com-posting process. Moreover, the environmental analysis showed thatthe production of 1 ton of compost issued from 4.116 kg to 11.771 kgof 1.4 dichlorobenzene equivalent, namely some substances (suchas heavy metals) that can have impacts upon human health andenvironment; produced from 0.06 to 0.07 kg of C2H4 responsible ofphotochemical oxidation; emitted from 0.07 to 0.14 kg of SO2eqcausing air acidification; produced from 0.01 to 0.02 kg PO4

3�eq,responsible of eutrophication. Consequently, the alternative E wasthe less impacting combination, whilst the alternative C the mostimpactful (Table 3).

Without considering direct emissions (which were not experi-mentally measured), such results were less impacting than othersfound in the literature such as those found by Clavreul et al. (2012),who analysed two waste management systems (incineration andanaerobic digestion), or by Cadena et al. (2009), who worked oncomposting of the organic fraction from OFMSW through twoaerobic composting technologies (composting tunnels andconfined windrows) or by Lopez-Ridaura et al. (2009), who ana-lysed the treatment of slurry in a collective biological treatmentstation. Similarly, this study evidenced lower impacts than thosedescribed by Saer et al. (2013) on a windrow composting system offood waste, or by Col�on et al. (2010) on home composting, or by

D E F

ting scenarios

ozone layer depletion (ODP) ecotoxicityeutrophication

s of the examined composting scenarios.


Ecotoxicity

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

A B C D E F

Composting scenarios

Kg1.4-DBeq

Abiotic Depletion

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

A B C D E F


kgSb

eq

Global Warming

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

A B C D E F


kgCO2eq

Acidification

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

A B C D E F


kgSO

2eq

Composting process

Stable management and collection of manure

Material processing and transport

Capital Equipment

Fig. 7. The contribution of composting operations to Ecotoxicity, Abiotic Depletion, Global Warming Potential and Air Acidification for the examined composting scenarios withoutdirect emissions. Values are referred to one ton of compost produced.


Martínez-Blanco et al. (2010) on home and industrial composting ofthe source separated organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Suchdifferences in findings can be probably due to the different com-posting systems analysed, and the diverse system boundaries,

Table 4Energy consumption in the examined composting scenarios within each composting plantMJ ton�1 of compost. Values in bold refer to the composting alternatives showing the m

Composting operations CV Plant

Alternatives

A B

Material processing and transport 409 203Stable management and collection of manure 20 20Composting process 139 139Total Energy 568 362


inventory analysis, software and method used for the impactcharacterisation.

The normalisation of the impact categories of the differentcomposting scenarios showed as scenarios C and A led to higher

s (Castel Volturno Plant - CV Plant; Stigliano Plant - ST Plant). Values are expressed asaximum and the minimum energy consumption.

ST Plant

C D E F

598 75 118 52520 20 52 52139 139 107 107756 233 276 684


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E F


Capital equipment Machinery and farmtools

Human labour Diesel fuel and lubricants

SRF cuttings Fertilizers Electricity

Fig. 8. Comparison of the energy inputs according to the different composting scenarios.

Table 5Some energy forms in compost production according to the examined compostingscenarios within each composting plants (Castel Volturno Plant - CV Plant; StiglianoPlant - ST Plant). Values are expressed asMJ ton�1 of compost. Values in bold refer tothe energy form most used by the composting alternatives.

Item CV Plant ST Plant

Alternatives

A B C D E F

Direct energy 350 242 418 130 203 464Indirect energy 218 120 338 104 73 220Renewable energy 94 1 189 1 1 105Non-renewable energy 474 361 567 233 275 580


environmental impacts, particularly in terms of ecotoxicity poten-tial and abiotic depletion (Fig. 6). The contribution of the differentcomposting operations to the most significant impact categories(Ecotoxicity, Abiotic Depletion, Global Warming Potential and AirAcidification) is shown in Fig. 7. In all scenarios, the material pro-cessing and its transport to the stable and to the plant were thecomposting operations with the higher environmental impacts,especially in scenarios A, C and F (Fig. 7). This was essentially due tothe production of wood chip from SRF utilised as animal bedding inthe stable or as bulking agent in the composting plant.

5.2. Energy consumption

The energy analysis showed that the production of 1 ton ofcompost needed from 233 to 756 MJ of energy (Table 4). Scenarios

Table 6Operating costs in the examined composting scenarios within each composting plants (Cton�1 of compost. Values in bold refer to the most expensive composting alternatives.

Composting operations CV Plant

Alternatives

A B

Material processing and transport 12.6 5.5Stable management and collection of manure 0.5 0.5Composting process 7.3 7.3Total costs 20.3 13.3


D and E, characterised by the use of straw and pruning residues,lead to the minor consume of energy (233 and 276 MJ ton�1,respectively). On the contrary, the use of wood chip, as in scenariosC and F, caused a major consume of energy (756 and 684 MJ ton�1,respectively).

As observed for the environmental impacts, the structural ma-terial processing and the transport of the same to the stable and tothe plant were the composting operations leading up to the higherenergy requirements in all scenarios. This is true especially forscenarios A, C and F where these operations weighed more than70% on the total energy requirement for the use of wood chip fromSRF as bulking agent.

The distribution analysis of the anthropogenic energy inputs incompost production (Fig. 8) suggested that the highest energyinput was provided by diesel fuel and lubricants in all scenariosfollowed by SRF cuttings in scenarios A, C and F, and by the capitalequipment in the other ones. All alternatives used more directenergy (more than 55% of the total energy input) than indirectforms, mainly due to the use of diesel fuel and lubricants. Moreover,all the investigated scenarios were primarily based on non-renewable energy: the share of renewable energy use was verylow (0% in B, D, E; 15% in F; 17% in A; 25% in C) (Table 5).

5.3. Compost production costs

Life cycle costs were employed to compare the economic resultsof different composting scenarios in order to better evaluate thesustainability of the on-farm compost production. Alternatives Fand C were the most expensive, averaging 30 V for one ton of

astel Volturno Plant - CV Plant; Stigliano Plant - ST Plant). Values are expressed as V

ST Plant

C D E F

22.4 2.2 4.9 21.50.5 0.5 1.1 1.17.3 7.3 8.8 8.830.1 9.9 14.8 31.5


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C D E F


Capital equipment Machinery and farmtools

Human labour Diesel fuel and lubricants

Fertilizers Electricity SRF cuttings

Fig. 9. Comparison of the costs inputs according to the different composting scenarios.


compost produced. Alternatives D and B were the cheapest oneswith a cost production of 10 and 13 V ton�1 of compost, respec-tively (Table 6). The utilisation of wood chip from SRF as bulkingagent was confirmed to be the less sustainable choice. However,from an economic point of view,1 ton on-farm compost productionresulted as more convenient in all the examined cases. As a matterof fact, the price of one ton of commercial compost manure on theItalian market and its cost transport to the final destination canreach 250 V ton�1: hence, the need to develop a network of on-farm compost production.

The distribution analysis of the costs within the different itemsfor compost production (Fig. 9) indicated that the capital equip-ment, machinery and human labour were themost expensive itemsin scenarios A, B, D and E, accounted for 84%, 99%, 99% and 100% ofthe total cost, respectively. In scenarios C and F the most expensivecost items were human labour, SRF cuttings and capital equipment(Fig. 9), which together accounted for most than 80% of the totalcosts.

6. Conclusions and future perspectives

Two on-farm composting plants, using manure and differentbulking agents (wood chip from SRF, straw and pruning residues),were analysed in 2013. LCAwas applied to calculate environmentalimpact indicators for each facility; EA to calculate the energyinvolved in the various composting scenarios; and LCC to evaluatethe cost production of 1 ton of compost produced. The analysesshowed that the production of 1 ton of on-farm compost frommanure would have low impacts and needs less than 300 MJ ofenergy whether maize straw or pruning residues were used asbulking agents. In addition, the economics costs for the productionare low, and so would make it cheaper than the commercialcompost affordable on the Italian market (purchase price pluscompost transport to the final destination).

The authors believe that the reliability of the results make them


be easily accessible and useful by farmers, farmer associations,technicians and local politicians to develop improved manuremanagement systems.

The production of on-farm compost can be a solution to the“surplus” problem of livestock effluents. Therefore, such findingscan be used as the starting point to promote - at the farm level - thediffusion of these low technology composting processes. The latterallow for the reuse of different organic matrices within the farmitself (usually considered as wastes) and the agronomic use of thehigh-quality compost thus obtained. In this way, the impacts of theconsumptions decrease because consumers (farms) become moreecologically aware and local production becomes more efficient. Asamatter of fact, production and consumption in loco do not produceGHG emissions due to transport, allowing the system to foster thetransition to societies based upon equitable, sustainable and localbioeconomies.

Finally, findings from this research can fill the gaps of knowl-edge in the available literature about the environmental, energyand economic evaluation of the sustainability of on-farm com-posting plants of dairy cattle/buffalo manure.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by: Agreement program MATTM-UNCCD-Basilicata Region: Pilot Project to Combat the Desertifica-tioneBasilicata; CarbOnFarm project Lifeþ ENV/IT/000719; PONPON03PE_00107_1 e Campania Region: BioPoliS.

References

Amlinger, F., Peyr, S., Cuhls, C., 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions from compostingand mechanical biological treatment. Waste Manag. Res. 26, 47e60.

Bai, Y., 2009. Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Impact of Using Switchgrass-derived Bioethanol as Transport Fuel. Master program graduation thesis.Netherlands University.

Banar, M., Cokaygil, Z., Ozkan, A., 2009. Life cycle assessment of solid waste


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(17)30842-9/sref2








management options for Eskisehir, Turkey. Waste Manag. 29, 54e62.Beline, F., Martinez, J., Chadwick, D., Guizou, F., 1999. Factors affecting nitrogen

transformations and related nitrous oxide emissions from aerobically treatedpiggery slurry. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 73, 235e243.

Benetto, E., Nguyen, D., Lohmann, T., Schmitt, B., Schossele, P., 2009. Life cycleassessment of ecological sanitation system for small-scale wastewater treat-ment. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 1506e1516.

Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., 2011. A life cycle approach to the management ofhousehold food waste e a Swedish full-scale case study. Waste Manag. 31,1879e1896.

Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., 2012. Review of comparative LCAs of food wastemanagement systems e current status and potential improvements. WasteManag. 32, 2439e2455.

Bjarnad�ottir, H., Friðriksson, G., Johnsen, T., Sletsen, H., 2002. Guidelines for the Useof LCA in the Waste Management Sector. Nord test Report TR 517. Nord test,Espoo. Finland.

Blengini, G.A., 2008. Using LCA to evaluate impacts and resources conservationpotential of composting: a case study of the Asti District in Italy. Resour. Con-serv. Recycl. 52, 1373e1381.

Blok, V., Long, T.B., Gaziulusoy, A.I., Ciliz, N., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Csutora, M.,Boks, C., 2015. From best practices to bridges for a more sustainable future:advances and challenges in the transition to global sustainable production andconsumption. Introduction to the ERSCP stream of the Special volume. J. Clean.Prod. 108, 19e30.

Boldrin, A., Andersen, J., Møller, J., Christensen, T., 2009. Composting and compostutilisation: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions.Waste Manag. Res. 27, 800e812.

Bowers, W., 1992. Agricultural field equipment. In: Fluck, R.C. (Ed.), Energy in WorldAgriculture 6. Energy in Farm Production. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 117e130.

Brand~ao, M., Clift, R., Mil�a i Canals, L., Basson, L., 2010. A life-cycle approach tocharacterising environmental and economic impacts of multifunctional land-use systems: an integrated assessment in the UK. Sustainability 2, 3747e3776.

Brown, S., Kruger, C., Subler, S., 2008. Greenhouse gas balance for composting op-erations. J. Environ. Qual. 37, 1396e1410.

Cadena, E., Col�on, J., Artola, A., S�anchez, A., Font, X., 2009. Environmental impact oftwo aerobic composting technologies using life cycle assessment. Int. J. LifeCycle Assess. 14, 401e410.

Celano, G., Alluvione, F., Abdel Aziz, M., Spaccini, R., 2012. The carbon dynamics inthe experimental plots. Use of 13C- and 15N-labelled compounds for the soil-plant balance in carbon sequestration. In: Piccolo, Alessandro (Ed.), CarbonSequestration in Agricultural Soils. A Multidisciplinary Approach to InnovativeMethods. Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York, pp. 107e144,40468 Düsseldorf.

Chen, T., Lin, C., 2007. Greenhouse gases emissions from waste managementpractices using Life Cycle Inventory model. J. Hazard Mater. 155, 23e31.

Clavreul, J., Guyonnet, D., Christensen, T.H., 2012. Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag. 32, 2482e2495.

Col�on, J., Martínez-Blanco, J., Gabarrell, X., Artola, A., S�anchez, A., Rieradevall, J.,Font, X., 2010. Environmental assessment of home composting. Resour. Conserv.Recycl. 54, 893e904.

Dalemo, M., Sonesson, U., Bjorklund, A., Mingarini, K., Frostell, B., Jonsson, H., 1997.ORWARE e a simulation model for organic waste handling systems 1: modeldescription. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 21, 17e37.

de Mendonça Costa, M.S.S., Cestonaro, T., de Mendonça Costa, L.A., Rozatti, M.A.T.,Carneiro, L.J., Pereira, D.C., Lorin, H.E.F., 2015. Improving the nutrient content ofsheep bedding compost by adding cattle manure. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 9e14.

De Vries, J.W., Groenestein, C.M., De Boe, I.J.M., 2012. Environmental consequencesof processing manure to produce mineral fertiliser and bio-energy. J. Environ.Manag. 102, 173e183.

Diaz, R., Warith, M., 2006. Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid wastes: devel-opment of the WASTED model. Waste Manag. 26, 886e901.

Diggelman, C., Ham, R.K., 2003. Household food waste to wastewater or to solidwaste? That is the question. Waste Manage. Res. 21, 501e514.

Ecoinvent Version 3, 2013. Available on: http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html.

Edwards, D., Williams, C., 2011. Method for Estimating Greenhouse Gas EmissionReductions from Compost from Commercial Organic Waste from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/compost_method.pdf (Accessed 01March 2015).

Emery, A., Davies, A., Griffiths, A., Williams, K., 2007. Environmental and economicmodelling: a case study of municipal solid waste management in Wales. Resour.Conserv. Recycl. 49, 244e263.

Eriksson, O., Reich, M., Frostell, B., Bj€orklund, A., Assefa, G., Sundquvist, J.,Granath, J., Baky, A., Thyselius, L., 2005. Municipal solid waste managementfrom a systems perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 241e252.

Esengun, K., Gündüz, O., Erdal, G., 2007. Inputeoutput energy analysis in dry apricotproduction of Turkey. Energ. Convers. Manage 48, 592e598.

European Commission, 2012. Innovating for Sustainable Growth: a Bioeconomy forEurope. Available on: http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/official-strategy_en.pdf.

Fruergaard, T., Hyks, J., Astrup, T., 2010. Life-cycle assessment of selected manage-ment options for air pollution control residues from waste incineration. Sci.Total Environ. 408 (20), 4672e4680.

Gezer, I., Acaro�glu, M., Hacisefero�gullari, H., 2003. Use of energy and labour inapricot agriculture in Turkey. Biomass Bioenerg. 24, 215e219.


Güereca, L.P., Gass�o, S., Baldasano, J.M., Jim�enez-Guerrero, P., 2006. Life cycleassessment of two biowaste management systems for Barcelona. Spain. Resour.Conserv. Recycl. 49, 32e48.

Guin�ee, J.B., Gorr�ee, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., Koning, A. de,Oers, L. van, Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., Bruijn, H. de,Duin, R. van, Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment.Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. I: LCA in Perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb:Operational Annex. III: Scientific Background. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Dordrecht, p. 692. ISBN 1-4020-0228-9.

Gündo�gmuṣ, E., 2006. Energy use on organic farming: a comparative analysis onorganic versus conventional apricot production on small holdings in Turkey.Energ. Convers. Manage 47, 3351e3359.

Hamelin, L., Wesnæs, M., Wenzel, H., Petersen, B.M., 2011. Environmental conse-quences of future biogas technologies based on separated slurry. Environ. Sci.Technol. 45, 5869e5877.

Hao, X., Chang, C., Larney, F.J., 2004. Carbon, nitrogen balances and greenhouse gasemission during cattle feedlot manure composting. J. Environ. Qual. 44, 33e37.

Hellebrand, H., Kalk, W.D., 2001. Emission of carbon monoxide during compostingof dung and green waste. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 60, 79e82.

Ingrao, C., Bacenetti, J., Bezama, A., Blok, V., Geldermann, J., Goglio, P., Koukios, E.G.,Lindner, M., Nemecek, T., Siracusa, V., Zabaniotou, A., Huisingh, D., 2016. Agri-cultural and forest biomass for food, materials and energy: bio-economy as thecornerstone to cleaner production and more sustainable consumption patternsfor accelerating the transition towards equitable, sustainable, post fossil-carbonsocieties. J. Clean. Prod. 117, 4e6.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006. IPCC Guidelines for NationalGreenhouse Gas Inventories. Retrieved 05 01, 2012, from: http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html (Accessed 02 April 2015).

International Standards Organisation, ISO, 2000. ISO 14042:2000. EnvironmentalManagement eLife Cycle Assessment e Life Cycle Impact Assessment. http://www.iso.org.

ISO, 2006a. International Standards Organisation, ISO 14044. Environmental Man-agement Life Cycle Assessment e Requirements and Guidelines.

ISO, 2006b. International Standards Organisation, ISO 14040. Environmental Man-agement Life Cycle Assessment e Principles and Framework.

Kaltsas, A.M., Mamolos, A.P., Tsatsarelis, C.A., Nanos, G.D., Kalburtji, K.L., 2007. En-ergy budget in organic and conventional olive groves. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 122,243e251.

Komilis, D., Bandi, D., Kakaronis, G., Zouppouris, G., 2011. The influence of spenthousehold batteries to the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes duringcomposting. Sci. Total Environ. 409 (13), 2555e2566.

La Rosa, A.D., Siracusa, G., Cavallaro, R., 2008. Emergy evaluation of sicilian redorange production. A comparison between organic and conventional farming.J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1907e1915.

Lopez-Ridaura, S., van der Werf, H., Paillat, J.M., Le Bris, B., 2009. Environmentalevaluation of transfer and treatment of excess pig slurry by life cycle assess-ment. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1296e1304.

Livestock Engineering Unit & Environmental Practices Unit Technical Services Di-vision Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, 2005. Manure Com-posting Manual. Available on. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex8875/$file/400_271.pdf?OpenElement.

Martínez-Blanco, J., Col�on, J., Gabarrell, X., Font, X., S�anchez, A., Artola, A.,Rieradevall, J., 2010. The use of life cycle assessment for the comparison ofbiowaste composting at home and full scale. Waste Manag. 30, 983e994.

Martínez-Blanco, J., Lazcano, C., Christensen, T.H., Mu~noz, P., Rieradevall, J.,Møller, J., Ant�on, A., Boldrin, A., 2013. Compost benefits for agriculture evalu-ated by life cycle assessment. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s 13593-013-0148-7.

Mihai, F.-C., Ingrao, C., 2016. Assessment of biowaste losses through unsound wastemanagement practices in rural areas and the role of home composting. J. Clean.Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.163.

Mil�a i Canals, L., 2003. Contributions to LCA Methodology for Agricultural Systems.Site Dependency and Soil Degradation Impact Assessment. Ph.D. Thesis.Autonomous University of Barcelon, Barcelona, Spain.

Mohamad, R.S., Bteich, M.R., Cardone, G., Marchini, A., 2013. Economic analysis inorganic olive farms: the case of the ancient olive trees in the rural parkland inApulia. New Medit. 12 (4), 55e61.

Monarca, D., Biondi, P., Panaro, V.N., Colantoni, A., Bartoli, S., Cecchini, M., 2009.Analisi delle richieste di energia per la coltivazione delle colture ortive. In: IXConvegno Naz. Dell’Ass. Italiana di Ingegneria Agraria Memoria, pp. 10e12.

Mu, D., Horowitz, N., Casey, M., Jones, K., 2017. Environmental and economicanalysis of an in-vessel food waste composting system at Kean University in theU.S. Waste Manag. 59, 476e486.

Mu~noz, I., Rodríguez, A., Rosal, R., Fern�andez-Alba, A.R., 2009. Life Cycle Assessmentof urban wastewater reuse with ozonation as tertiary treatment: a focus ontoxicity-related impacts. Sci. Total. Environ. 407 (4), 1245e1256.

Namdari, M., Kangarshahi, A.A., Amiri, N.A., 2011. Input-output energy analysis ofcitrus production in Mazandaran province of Iran. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 6,2558e2564.

Norhasmillah, A.H., Puah, C.W., Ibrahim, N.A., Baharuddin, A.S., Choo, Y.M., 2013. Lifecycle inventory of the commercial production of compost from oil palmbiomass: a case study. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 15 (6), 1663e1670.

Ozkan, B., Akcaoz, H., Fert, C., 2004. Energy inputeoutput analysis in Turkishagriculture. Renew. Energy 29, 39e51.

Ozkan, B., Fert, C., Karadeniz, F., 2007. Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and

































































































http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html

http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/compost_method.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/compost_method.pdf














http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/official-strategy_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/official-strategy_en.pdf














































http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html

http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html

http://www.iso.org

http://www.iso.org





















http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/&dollar;department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex8875/&dollar;file/400_271.pdf?OpenElement

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/&dollar;department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex8875/&dollar;file/400_271.pdf?OpenElement







http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s 13593-013-0148-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s 13593-013-0148-7






































open grape production. Energ. Convers. Manage. 32, 1500e1504.Page, G., 2009. An Environmentally Based Systems Approach to Sustainability

Analysis of Organic Fruit Production Systems in New Zealand. PhD thesis.Massey University.

Pane, C., Piccolo, A., Spaccini, R., Celano, G., Villecco, D., Zaccardelli, M., 2013.Agricultural waste-based composts exhibiting suppressivity to diseases causedby the phytopathogenic soil borne fungi Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotiniaminor. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 65, 43e51.

Pappalardo, G., Scienza, A., Vindigni, G., D’Amico, M., 2013. Profitability of winegrape growing in the EU member states. J. Wine Res. 24 (1), 59e76.

Pergola, M., D’Amico, M., Celano, G., Palese, A.M., Scuderi, A., Di Vita, G.,Pappalardo, G., Inglese, P., 2013. Sustainability evaluation of Sicily’s lemon andorange production: an energy, economic and environmental analysis. J. Environ.Manage 128, 674e682.

Pimentel, D., 1992. Energy inputs in production agriculture. In: Fluck, R.C. (Ed.),Energy in World Agriculture 6. Energy in Farm Production. Elsevier, Amsterdam,pp. 13e22.

Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M., 1979. Food, Energy and Society. John Wiley and Sons,New York.

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., Seidel, R., 2005. Environmentalenergetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farmingsystems. Bioscience 55, 573e582.

Polychronaki, E.A., Douma, A.C., Dantsis, T.H., Giourga, C., Loumou, A., 2007. Energyanalysis as an indicator of agricultural sustainability: the case of WestMacedonia and Epirus, Greece. In: Proceeding of the 10th International Con-ference on Environmental Science and Technology. Kos Island, Greece, 5e7September.

Prapaspongsa, T., Christensen, P., Schmidt, J.H., Thrane, M., 2010. LCA of compre-hensive pig manure management incorporating integrated technology systems.J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1413e1422.

PR�e, various authors, 2015. SimaPro Database Manual Methods Library. Availableon. https://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro-database-and-methods-library (Accessed 14 January 2015).

Proietti, P., Calisti, R., Gigliotti, G., Nasini, L., Regni, L., Marchini, A., 2016. Compostingoptimization: integrating cost analysis with the physical-chemical properties ofmaterials to be composted. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1086e1099.

Quir�os, R., Villalba, G., Mu~noz, P., Col�on, J., Font, X., Gabarrell, X., 2014. Environ-mental assessment of two home composts with high and low gaseous emis-sions of the composting process. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 90, 9e20.

Recycled Organics Unit, 2007. Life Cycle Inventory and Life Cycle Assessment forWindrow Composting Systems. The University of New SouthWales, Availableon. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/2006400_org_


lcassesswindrowsys.pdf.Reganold, J.P., Glover, J.D., Andrews, P.K., Hinman, H.R., 2001. Sustainability of three

apple production systems. Nature 410, 926e993.Ruggieri, L., Cadena, E., Martınez-Blanco, J., Gasol, C.M., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X.,

Gea, T., Sort, X., Sanchez, A., 2009. Recovery of organic wastes in the Spanishwine industry. Technical, economic and environmental analyses of the com-posting process. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 830e838.

Rynk, R., van de Kamp, M., Willson, G.B., Singley, M.E., Richard, T.L., Kolega, J.J.,Gouin, F.R., Laliberty Jr., L., Kay, D., Murphy, D.W., Hoitink, H.A.J., Brinton, W.F.,1992. On-Farm composting handbook. In: Rynk, R. (Ed.), Northeast Regional 610Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, N.Y, pp. 6e13, 106-113.

Saer, A., Lansing, S., Davitt, N.H., Graves, R.E., 2013. Life cycle assessment of a foodwaste composting system: environmental impact hotspots. J. Clean. Prod. 52,234e244.

Sandars, D.L., Audsley, E., Ca~nete, C., Cumby, T.R., Scotford, I.M., Williams, A.G., 2003.Environmental benefits of livestock manure management practices and tech-nology by Life Cycle Assessment. Biosyst. Eng. 84 (3), 267e281.

Santos, A., Bustamante, M.A., Tortosa, G., Moral, R., Bernal, M.P., 2016. Gaseousemissions and process development during composting of pig slurry: the in-fluence of the proportion of cotton gin waste. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 81e90.

Sharma, G., Campbell, A., 2003. Life Cycle Inventory and Life Cycle Assessment forWindrow Composting Systems. Department of Environment and Conservation,University of New South Wales, Recycled Organics Unit, Sydney.

Sonesson, U., Bj€orklund, A., Carlsson, M., Dalemo, M., 2000. Environmental andeconomic analysis of management systems for biodegradable waste. Resour.Conserv. Recycl. 28, 29e53.

Sun, W., Huang, G.H., Zeng, G., Qin, X., Yu, H., 2011. Quantitative effects of com-posting state variables on C/N ratio through GA-aided multivariate analysis. Sci.Total Environ. 409 (7), 1243e1254.

Thomassen, M.A., van Calker, K.J., Smits, M.C.J., Iepema, G.L., de Boer, I.M., 2008. Lifecycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in TheNetherlands. Agr. Syst. 96, 95e107.

Valipour, M., Sefidkouhi, M.A.G., Eslamian, S., 2015. Surface irrigation simulationmodels: a review. Int. J. Hydrol. Sci. Technol. 5 (1).

Volpi, R., 1992. Bilanci Energetici in Agricoltura. Laruffa Editore, Reggio Calabria,Italy.

Yannopoulos, S.I., Lyberatos, G., Theodossiou, N., Li, W., Valipour, M., Tamburrino, A.,Angelakis, A.N., 2015. Evolution of water lifting devices (pumps) over thecenturies worldwide. Water 7, 5031e5060.

Zhao, W., Van der Voet, E., Zhang, Y., Huppes, G., 2009. Life cycle assessment ofmunicipal solid waste management with regard to greenhouse gas emissions:case study of Tianjin, China. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 1517e1526.








































https://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro-database-and-methods-library

https://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro-database-and-methods-library












http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/2006400_org_lcassesswindrowsys.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/2006400_org_lcassesswindrowsys.pdf
























































Documents

Journal of Cleaner Production - carbonfarm.eu · Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e13 Please cite this article inpress as: Pergola, M., et al., A combined assessment of the